Hello Jim. I think the second way would be better because there would be no repeated code, and it would be easier to implement. Do you think there will be any performance benefit from the first way?
Regards, Denis. ----- "Jim Graham" <james.gra...@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi Denis, > > It would be ill-advised to normalize the coordinates after flattening. > > The quality would be really bad. > > Perhaps this is a good reason to start looking at updating Pisces to > take curves and flatten at the lowest level? > > Or, I suppose we could get a non-flattened iterator from the source > path, send it through a "normalizing" filter, and then through a > flattening filter (the way many of the existing objects do flattening > is > to just get their regular iterator and run it through an instance of > FlatteningPathIterator so we could do this manually with an > intervening > "NormalizingPathIterator" if normalization is needed)... > > ...jim > > Denis Lila wrote: > > Hello Jim. > > > > Thanks for that. I'll get to work on implementing it. > > > > One thing though, about normalizing the control points of bezier > > curves: pisces never gets any bezier curves as input. It only gets > > lines that are the product of flattening bezier curves. > > > > Pisces receives its input from flattening path iterators which get > it > > from other path iterators. Of course we can't require these to send > out > > normalized points. In order to normalize the control points we need > to > > be able to look at the bezier curves in Pisces, so we can't just > take > > all the input from the flattener. However, pisces can't handle > curves > > (yet, hopefully), so after the normalization, they must be > flattened, and > > this is the problem. I think it's a pretty good idea to do this by > > storing the input form the iterator into pisces (after > normalization), > > creating a nameless path iterator that just iterates through all > that, > > and using this iterator to create a flattening iterator, which then > > is used as before. > > > > Does anyone have any other ideas? > > > > Thank you, > > Denis. > > > > > > ----- "Jim Graham" <james.gra...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > >> For AA this is exactly what we do (round to nearest pixel centers > for > >> > >> strokes). Note that this is done prior to any line widening code > is > >> executed. > >> > >> For non-AA we normalize coordinates to, I believe the (0.25, 0.25) > > >> sub-pixel location. This is so that the transitions between > widening > >> of > >> lines occurs evenly (particularly for horizontal and vertical wide > > >> lines). If you round to pixel edges then you have the following > >> progression (note that the line width grows by half on either side > of > >> > >> the original geometry so you have to consider the "line widths" > where > >> > >> you encounter the pixel centers to your left and right (or above > and > >> below) which govern when that column (or row) of pixels first > turns > >> on): > >> > >> width 0.00 => 0.99 nothing drawn (except we kludge this) > >> width 1.00 => 1.00 1 pixel wide (col to left turns on) > >> width 1.01 => 2.99 2 pixels wide (col to right turns on) > >> width 3.00 => 3.00 3 pixels wide (etc.) > >> width 3.01 => 4.99 4 pixels wide > >> > >> Note that it is nearly impossible to get an odd-width line. You > >> basically have to have exactly an integer width to get an odd-width > > >> line. This is because at the odd widths you reach the "half pixel" > > >> locations on both sides of the line at the same time. Due to the > >> "half-open" insideness rules only one of the pixels will be chosen > to > >> be > >> inside this path. Just below these sizes and you fail to hit > either > >> pixel center. Just at the integer size you reach both pixel > centers > >> at > >> the same time. Just slightly larger than that width and now you've > > >> fully enclosed both pixel centers and the line width has to > increase > >> by > >> nearly 2.0 until you reach the next pixel centers. > >> > >> (The kludge I talk about above is that we set a minimum pen width > so > >> that we never fail to draw a line even if the line width is set to > >> 0.0, > >> but the above table was a theoretical description of the absolute > >> rules.) > >> > >> If we rounded them to pixel centers, then the transitions look > like > >> this: > >> > >> width 0.00 => 0.00 nothing drawn (modulo kludge) > >> width 0.01 => 1.99 1 pixel wide (column you are in turns on) > >> width 2.00 => 2.00 2 pixels wide (column to left turns on) > >> width 2.01 => 3.99 3 pixels wide (column to right turns on) > >> width 4.00 => 4.00 4 pixels wide (etc.) > >> width 4.01 => 5.99 5 pixels wide > >> > >> We have a similar effect as above, but biased towards making even > line > >> > >> widths harder. > >> > >> So, by locating lines at (0.25, 0.25) subpixel location we end up > with > >> a > >> very even progression: > >> > >> width 0.00 => 0.50 nothing drawn (modulo kludge) > >> width 0.51 => 1.50 1 pixel wide (column you are in turns on) > >> width 1.51 => 2.50 2 pixel wide (column to left gets added) > >> width 2.51 => 3.50 3 pixel wide (column to right gets added) > >> width 3.51 => 4.50 4 pixel wide (etc.) > >> > >> This gives us nice even and gradual widening of the lines as we > >> increase > >> the line width by sub-pixel amounts and the line widths are fairly > > >> stable around integer widths. > >> > >> Also, note that we don't say "when stroking" as you might want to > >> normalize both strokes and fills so that they continue to match. I > > >> believe that we normalize both strokes and fills for non-AA and we > >> only > >> normalize strokes for AA (and leave AA fills as "pure"). AA is > less > >> problematic with respect to creating gaps if your stroke and fill > >> normalization are not consistent. > >> > >> The rounding equations are along the lines of: > >> > >> v = Math.floor(v + rval) + aval; > >> > >> For center of pixel you use (rval=0.0, aval=0.5) > >> For 0.25,0.25 rounding use (rval=0.25, aval=0.25) > >> For edge of pixel you use (rval=0.5, aval=0.0) > >> > >> Also, we came up with an interesting way of adjusting the control > >> points > >> of quads and cubics if we adjusted their end points, but I don't > know > >> if > >> what we did was really the best idea. For quads we adjust the > control > >> > >> point by the average of the adjustments that we applied to its 2 > end > >> points. For cubics, we move the first control point by the same > >> amount > >> as we moved the starting endpoint and the second control point by > the > >> > >> amount we moved the final endpoint. The jury is out on whether > that > >> is > >> the most aesthetic technique... > >> > >> ...jim > >> > >> Denis Lila wrote: > >>> Regarding VALUE_STROKE_NORMALIZE the API says: > >>> Stroke normalization control hint value -- > geometry > >> should > >>> be normalized to improve uniformity or spacing of > >> lines and > >>> overall aesthetics. Note that different > >> normalization > >>> algorithms may be more successful than others for > >> given > >>> input paths. > >>> > >>> I can only think of one example where VALUE_STROKE_NORMALIZE makes > a > >> visible > >>> difference between the closed source implementation and OpenJDK: > >>> when drawing anti-aliased horizontal or vertical lines of width > 1, > >> Pisces > >>> draws a 2 pixel wide line with half intensity (because integer > >> coordinates > >>> are between pixels). Sun's jdk with VALUE_SROKE_NORMALIZE turned > on > >> draws > >>> a 1 pixel line with full intensity. This could to achieved by > just > >>> checking for normalization and rounding coordinates to the > nearest > >> half > >>> pixel, but this solution seems too simple, and I'm not sure > whether > >> I'm missing > >>> anything. It would also probably cause problems when drawing > >> anti-aliased > >>> short lines (which is done when drawing any sort of curve) > >>> Unless, of course, this rounding was restricted to just > horizontal > >> and > >>> vertical lines. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Denis.
